ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2019
Test-retest reliability of the revised diplopia questionnaire.
Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Dutch Adult Strabismus-20 Questionnaire (Dutch-AS-20).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A prospective study of treatments for adult-onset divergence insufficiency-type esotropia.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate misclassification of diplopia "success" when using a standardized diplopia questionnaire (DQ), and to report test-retest reliability of the DQ.
methodsWe retrospectively identified a cohort of 100 patients with stable strabismus (<5
resultsWhen defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance, misclassification occurred in 12 (12%) of 100 (95% CI, 6%-20%). When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance and reading, misclassification occurred in 14 (14%) of 100 (95% CI, 8%-22%). The 95% LOA for the DQ score were 35.2 points, and ICC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90).
conclusionsWe have quantified misclassification and test-retest variability when using the DQ dichotomously or as a continuous measure, equipping the clinician to better interpret DQ outcome data in practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.